Tuesday, February 05, 2013

While team owners Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz are still having trouble opening their tight pockets for high-priced free agents, that didn’t stop their development arm, Sterling Equities, from betting on a proposal that called for bringing a massive casino with gaming tables and slots, a 500-room, full-service hotel, 1.8 million square feet of retail and other amenities to the Willets Point development site in Queens.

The Southampton-based Shinnecock Indian Nation signed on to operate the casino, and the Wilpons and partners even offered the city $100 million for the 62-acre site, according to the development team’s proposal, which was first obtained by project opponents Willets Point United and NYC Park Advocates.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

IMO, in NYC, a casino could operate at a much smaller scale and have a strictly high-roller clientele. 500 rooms and mostly slots will make money, but that's a pretty small operation and would not be able to subsidize any significant losses on the Mets part. TFA's reference to the proposed casino as "massive" seems highly inadequate. Massive has real meaning in the casino industry--there are no "massive" casinos opening in the United States over the next 10 years.

I would imagine that this has nothing to do with the Madoff deal and is just a bog standard real estate investment for Sterling.

At CitiCasino our business model is to cater to an elite clientele of wealthy people who are also uneducated, impulsive and fascinated by flashing lights and shiny things. The plan is to put the slot machines in the locker rooms.

I very much enjoy a trip to the casino. With that said, the "Casino" at Acqueduct is the most depressing place on earth. What the articke is describing seems similiar, and thus feed on the natural synergies associated with the Mets brand.

If this means we never have to see that horrible casino ad they ran every inning last year (that ended with Celine Dion giving some sap a rose) it would be worth it. And it would go broke with those dipsticks running it.

Although Sterling Equities wouldn’t directly operate or build the casino, any investment by the Mets’ owners in such a venture could raise eyebrows, considering Major League Baseball’s tough antigambling policies.

A league spokesman said that MLB would “need to get all of the details of the agreement” and that it would ultimately be Commissioner Bud Selig’s call.

Nutting, a West Virginia resident and the chief executive of the Ogden newspaper chain, bought the Seven Springs Mountain Resort in western Pennsylvania earlier this year. His original idea was to build a casino of 500 slot machines at the ski resort, enhancing the resort and its revenue.

But he has abandoned his plan because baseball doesn’t permit a club owner to own or operate a casino.

“We withdrew the application for slot machines because the rules in baseball are very clear,” Nutting said yesterday by telephone. “Rather than try to come up with a structure that maybe would have subverted the intent, we thought it was appropriate to respect the intent of the rule and withdrew.”

It also says the Ilitch family (Tigers owner) has circumvented this rule by having Marian Ilitch (wife of the owner) own the holdings in the casino.

#20 They ran into trouble with one particular (peculiar?) commissioner -- Bowie Kuhn -- and one of the first things Uberroth did on taking over was to rescind the ban.

I was with Bowie on that one. If you're getting your checks signed by the gambling industry, you shouldn't be involved in MLB. Obviously things have changed, but I thought it was perfectly reasonable to put them on the ineligible list (I don't recall if it was supposed to be permanent, which I wouldn't support, or if it was just for the duration of their employment, which made sense to me).

#25 It wasn't permanent. It was structure so that they didn't even nedd to re-apply. The ban came off the moment they stopped working for the casinos.

That's what I thought, and I thought then (and still think now, though I wouldn't think the same if it were to happen today) that it was the right decision.

You want to cash checks from the gaming industry, you take a break from MLB activities. There was no reason to make exceptions for Mickey or Willie because they were legends or their casino jobs were largely ceremonial. The clean break made perfect sense. I don't say it often, but Bowie got that one right.

And I'm with Uberroth here. It's only betting on baseball that's a (baseball related) sin.

If Bowie tried to make it permanent or yank them out of the Hall, then I'd agree. But none of that happened. Two guys went on the casino payroll and Bowie said they sit this out until that's over. Makes sense to me.

If Bowie tried to make it permanent or yank them out of the Hall, then I'd agree. But none of that happened. Two guys went on the casino payroll and Bowie said they sit this out until that's over. Makes sense to me.

Except the rule was never applied to those MLB owners (such as, to stay on topic, then-Mets owner Joyn Payson) who owned race horses.

How does The Mob feel about this - unwelcome competition or opportunity to exploit?

All part of the Wilpons' brilliant plan. If the Mets had actual good players, they would always be susceptible to extortion -- "gee, Mr. Wilpon, it would be a shame if Ryan Braun were to have a little accident." That sort of threat doesn't work when it's Justin Turner.

As to baseball and gambling, casinos are now major advertisers in the ballparks and on local/regional radio/TV. It won't be long before something like this happens -- sure, probably some Illich-type setup to keep baseball technically out of it but dollars will in in the end.

And badly run. I saw one from the road, thought I'd play a day and night of blackjack if the rules didn't excessively favor the house. I park, go in. No rules posted. No mention of payouts in the short how-to video. I asked a pit boss. He said no one ever asked before. Said he'd see if they could get me a copy. We make pleasant small talk for fifteen minutes. A guy arrives, whispers in his ear. No, the boss tells me pleasantly, they don't have printed copies, it seems.

Maybe I was too used to the straightforward way they do it in Las Vegas, but this struck me as incredibly amateurish, in a 'neither approach will cost us with the clueless, who will come anyway, but it'll tend to drive away anyone expecting a hint of professionalism' sort of way.'

I watched for a few minutes. Blackjack v. blackjack was a wash. Blackjack for the player paid 3 to 2. Dealer's discretion with 17. I was charmed not to play.